Category Archives: IT Management

I see this concept appear in discussions surrounding virtualization all of the time. This is a broader, more general concept but virtualization is the “hot, new technology” facing many IT organizations and seems to be the space where currently we see the “just because you can, doesn’t mean you should” problems rearing their ugly heads most prevalently. As with everything in IT, it is critical that all technical decisions be put into a business context so that we understand why we choose to do what we do and not blindly attempt to make our decisions based on popular deployment methodologies or worse, myths..

Virtualization itself, I should point out, I feel should be a default decision today for those working in the x64 computing space with systems being deployed sans virtualization only when a clear and obvious necessity exists such as specific hardware needs, latency sensitive applications, etc. Baring any specific need, virtualization is free to implement from many vendors and offers many benefits both today and in future-proofing the environment.

That being said, what I often see today is companies deploying virtualization not as a best practice but as a panacea to all perceived IT problems. This it certainly is not. Virtualization is a very important tool to have in the IT toolbox and one that we will reach for very often, but it does not solve every problem and should be treated like every other tool that we posses and used only when appropriate.

I see several things recurring when virtualization discussions come up as a topic. Many companies today are moving towards virtualization not because they have identified a business need but because it is the currently trending topic and people feel that if they do not implement virtualization that somehow they will be left behind or miss out on some mythical functionality. This is generally good as it is increasing virtualization adoption, but it is bad because good IT and business decision making processes are being bypassed. What happens is often that in the wave of virtualization hype IT departments feel that not only do they have to implement virtualization itself but do so in ways that may not be appropriate for their business.

There are four things that I often see tied to virtualization, often accepted as virtualization requirements, whether or not they make sense in a given business environment. These are server consolidation, blade servers, SAN storage and high availability or live failover.

Consolidation is so often vaunted as the benefit of virtualization that I think most IT departments forget that there are other important reasons for doing implementing it. Clearly consolidation is a great benefit for nearly all deployments (mileage may vary, of course) and is nearly always able to be achieved simply through better utilization of existing resources. It is a pretty rare company that runs more than a single physical server that cannot shave some amount of cost through limited consolidation and it is not uncommon to see datacenter footprints decimated in larger organizations.

In extreme cases, though, it is not necessary to abandon virtualization projects just because consolidation proves to be out of the question. These cases exist for companies with high utilization systems and little budget for a preemptive consolidation investment. But these shops can still virtualize “in place” systems on a one to one basis to gain other benefits of virtualization today and look to consolidate when hardware needs to be replaced tomorrow or when larger, more powerful servers become more cost effective in the future. It is important to not rule out virtualization just because its most heralded benefit may not apply at the current time in your environment.

Blade servers are often seen as the choice for virtualization environments. Blades may play better in a standard virtualization environment than they do with more traditional computational workloads but this is both highly disputable and not necessarily applicable data. Being a good scenario for blades themselves does not make it a good scenario for a business. Just because the blades perform better than normal when used in this way does not imply that they perform better than traditional servers – only that they have potentially closed the gap.

Blades needs to be evaluated using the same harsh criteria when virtualizing as when not and, very often, they will continue to fail to provide the long term business value needed to choose them over the more flexible alternatives. Blades remain far from a necessity for virtualization and often, in my opinion, a very poor choice indeed.

One of the most common misconceptions is that by moving to virtualization one must also move to shared storage such as SAN. This mindset is the obvious reaction to the desire to also achieve other benefits from virtualization which, if they don’t require SAN, benefit greatly from it. The ability to load balance or failover between systems is heavily facilitated by having a shared storage backend. It is a myth that this is a hard requirement, but replicated local storage brings its own complexities and limitations.

But shared storage is far from a necessity of virtualization itself and, like everything, needs to be evaluated on its own. If virtualization makes sense for your environment but you need no features that require SAN, then virtualize without shared storage. There are many cases where local storage backed virtualization is an ideal deployment scenario. There is no need to dismiss this approach without first giving it serious consideration.

The last major assumed necessary feature of virtualization is system level high availability or instant failover for your operating system. Without a doubt, high availability at the system layer is a phenomenal benefit that virtualization brings us. However, few companies needed high availability at this level prior to implementing virtualization and the price tag of the necessary infrastructure and software to do it with virtualization is often so high as to make it too expensive to justify.

High availability systems are complex and often overkill. It is a very rare business system that requires transparent failover for even the most critical systems and those companies with that requirement would almost certainly already have failover processes in place. I see companies moving towards high availability all of the time when looking at virtualization simply because a vendor saw an opportunity to dramatically oversell the original requirements. The cost of high availability is seldom justified by the potential loss of revenue from the associated reduction in downtime. With non-highly available virtualization, downtime for a failed hardware device might be measured in minutes if backups are handled well. This means that high availability has to justify its cost in potentially eliminating just a few minutes of unplanned downtime per year minus any additional risks assumed by the added system complexity. Even in the biggest organizations this is seldom justified on any large scale and in a more moderately sized company it is uncommon altogether. But today we find many small businesses implementing high availability systems at extreme cost on systems that could easily suffer multi-day outages with minimal financial loss simply because the marketing literature promoted the concept.

Like anything, virtualization and all of the associated possibilities that it brings to the table need to be evaluated individually in the context of the organization considering them. If the individual feature does not make sense for your business do not assume that you have to purchase or implement that feature. Many organizations virtualize but use only a few, if any, of these “assumed” features. Don’t look at virtualization as a black box, look at the parts and consider them like you would consider any other technology project.

What often happens in a snowball effect where one feature, likely high availability, is assumed to be necessary without the proper business assessment being performed. Then a shared storage system, often assumed to be required for high availability, is added as another assumed cost. Even if high availability features are not purchased the decision to use SAN might already be made and fail to be revisited after changes to the plan are made. It is very common, in my experience, to find projects of this nature with sometimes more than fifty percent of the total expenditure on the project being spent on products that the purchaser is unable to even describe the reason for having purchased.

This concept does not stop at virtualization. Extend it to everything that you do. Keep IT in perspective of the business and don’t assume that going with one technology automatically assumes that you must adopt other technologies that are popularly associated with it.

When I was new to IT I can remember people using the phrase “No one ever got fired for buying IBM.” At the time I was young and didn’t think too much about what this phrase implies. Recently, I heard this phrase again – except this time it was “No one ever gets fired for buying Cisco” and soon thereafter I heard it applied to virtualization and VMWare. This time I stopped to think about what exactly I was being told.

At face value, the statement comes as little more than an observation, but the intent runs much deeper. The statement is used as a justification for a decision that has been made and implies that the decision was made not because the product or vendor in question was the best choice but because it was the choice that was believed to have the least risk involved for the decision maker. Not the least risk or most value for the organization – least risk to the decision maker.

This implies one of two possibilities. The first being that the decision maker in question, presumably an IT manager, feels that due diligence and careful analysis is not recognized or rewarded by the organization. That marketing, by an IT vendor to non-IT management, has convinced management that those products and services are superior without consideration for functionality, cost, reliability or service.

The second possibility is that the IT decision maker believes that they can get away without performing the cost, risk and functionality analysis which would be deemed proper for deciding between competing options and believes that by picking a popular option, well known in the marketplace, that they will be shielded from serious inquiry into their processes and simply deliver what sounds like a plausible solution with minimal effort on their part.

As IT Managers, one of the most crucial job functions that we perform is in identifying, evaluating and recommending products and solutions to our organizations. The fact that phrases like these are used so commonly suggests that a large percentage of IT managers and advisers are deciding to forgo the difficult and laborious process of researching products and solutions and are banking on making an easy decision that is likely to seem reasonable to management, regardless of whether or not it is a viable solution, let alone the best one for the organization. The assumption being that a very expensive product will be chosen when potentially a less expensive or less well known option might have worked as well or better and in some extreme cases a product may be recommended using this method that does not even provide for the needs of the organization at all.

IT lives and dies by the decision making value that it brings to the organization. We hate to admit it, but finding people who can fix desktops is not that hard and the economic value of someone who can fix anything wrong on the desktop versus simply rebuilding one is small. If we eliminate quality decision analysis from the IT manager’s skill set, what value does he or she bring to the company?

Like this:

When most people compare enterprise IT and the small business IT markets they generally think about size and scale. Enterprise environments are huge and small business IT often consists of just one or a few IT professionals holding a company together. The differences between these two classes of environments are much deeper than just size. Thinking of the small and medium business market as being small-scaled enterprises is a great way to misunderstand what this market is all about. There are fundamental behavioral differences between these organizational types and I would put forth that this behavior is likely a far better determinant between what constitutes a small or medium business and what constitutes an enterprise business from an IT perspective.

One of the places in which this difference in behavior is most visible is in vendor relationships. In the enterprise space, as well as in large businesses, vendors act very much as a partner with the corporate IT department. Often vendors will have dedicated representatives who spend some or possibly all of their time at the customer site and are available to answer questions, make contact with support, provide input and guidance – whatever is needed by the IT department as it relates to that vendor’s products and in some rare cases even outside of the scope of the vendor’s own products. In exchange the vendor has nearly constant access to the “ears” of IT and management in order to inform them and to sway their opinion in favor of said vendor’s products. This also gives the vendor direct access, in many cases, to the “on the ground” IT people who are using their products and providing them with critical, non-management feedback.

In many ways this relationship causes “the conversation” between the vendor and the “market”, as proposed by Levine, Locke, Searls and Weinberger in their groundbreaking 1999 tome “The Cluetrain Manifesto”, to take place in-person, in real-time in a way that is very traditional and effective. When the company wants product information it simply contacts its vendor representative and that rep will provide samples, get documentation, give a presentation, organize training sessions, obtain roadmaps and more. If the products do not meet the company’s needs the feedback is immediate and meaningful. The relationship is symbiotic and everyone gains from the tight communication channel that is created between the enterprise IT department and their vendors.

The small business market sees none of this. There are many reasons for this. The scale on which the SMB IT department operates does not allow a vendor to dedicate a sales resource, let alone a technical resource, to a single client. This one, simple difference breaks the communication channel leaving SMB IT departments in a far different position than their enterprise counterparts. Any conversation held between an SMB IT manager and a vendor is an ad-hoc, temporary conversation. Vendors do not get to know their clients. They don’t have a deep understanding of their business. They don’t see their clients as individuals but as a pool of consumers more akin to the standard, personal consumer market than to the enterprise where each customer is well known and appreciated individually.

The differences in interaction are not solely from the vendor’s perspective. In the enterprise the IT department typically has resources with time to dedicate to interacting with vendor representatives. Technical support roles such as server administrators may work directly with sales and engineering resources for support issues and purchasing recommendations while architectural professionals may use vendor representatives to assist in capacity planning, system design or to establish performance metrics. In the SMB there do not exist these dedicated internal roles and the available IT resources are often overworked and spread too thinly between many different tasks leaving little or no available time to focus on single issues such as these even if the vendors were to provide such resources. Enterprise departments often manage to even allow regular, “in the trenches” technical staff to attend sales luncheons and other vendor-sponsored events only loosely tied to their job functions. In the SMB space this is all but unheard of.

Another key difference between the SMB and enterprise markets is in the way that they purchase for IT. Enterprises generally view their purchasing process in terms of services. These may include warranty services, datacenter management, software customization, hardware leases, software customization, etc. The small business market generally sees purchasing in terms of products – either hardware or software. Small businesses think in terms of buying desktops, monitors, servers, software licenses, etc. Small businesses purchase the same whether buying directly from their vendor, from the channel or from the local store. The transactions are very simple. Enterprises think of a server in terms of its monthly support cost and total lifespan while SMBs simply see a price tag. This does not mean that SMBs never purchases services – only that they do so typically in a very up-front, set price sort of way although they typically purchase far fewer services than do enterprise IT departments.

Enterprise IT environments have the distinct advantage of large scale peer interaction both internally and externally. IT professionals working in large environments are constantly learning about new products, technologies and techniques from their counterparts within their own organization as well as from peers in competing organizations in their market verticals. This gives enterprise staff an advantage in working with their vendors because they see how these vendors interact with their peers locally and elsewhere and get feedback on how other vendors in competing areas work with their clients. This creates a competitive market for vendors based on their level of service to their clients. In small and medium business there is very little insight into these relationships at other, similar companies. SMBs naturally do not get interaction with a direct peer group. At best they can hope for peer support groups for organizations of similar size, but even that is extremely rare. Vendor relationships with the SMB market are very much isolated from peer review and market pressures.

SMB IT professionals seldom get a chance to attend industry events like their enterprise counterparts either. They often do attend some but few by comparison. This provides fewer opportunities for SMBs to learn about vendors with whom they do not already have a relationship. This is very beneficial to big vendors like HP, Dell, IBM and Microsoft who need no introduction to any IT professional, but smaller vendors, new vendors and niche vendors will often find it hard to make SMBs aware of their existence let alone find an opportunity to discuss their products and services directly with them. Making connections between SMBs and vendors capable of meeting their needs is a significant challenge in most cases.

SMBs also suffer from not having industry publications and other vertical resources available to them in most cases. SMB IT managers may use general resources from the IT field such as technology publications and online magazines to investigate what others in their peer group are doing, but targeted materials designed specifically for their technology needs are rare if not non-existent.

Another difference in how SMB and enterprise IT departments behave is in their driving force behind purchasing. Enterprise customers typically purchase products strategically. This purchasing may be driven by a desire for datacenter consolidation, power reduction, features, easing administrative burdens, market pricing advantages and more. Careful cost analysis will often cause them to buy opportunistically and a tightly coupled vendor relationship helps to enable this. SMBs, on the contrary, are typically tactical (demand-driven.) They purchase new products when the old are no longer serviceable, no longer meeting demand, no longer supported or additional capacity is needed. They will seldom buy when market pressures make purchasing most advantageous but will do so quite suddenly with relatively little research leading up to the point of spending.

The SMB market is very likely to be keenly aware of the bottom line of any purchase. This seems obvious but in the enterprise space there is normally much more room for a technical specialist to ask for features that carry extra cost because they simply feel confident that they will be beneficial. Enterprises are often more likely to trust the hunches of their technical staff and to pay for “soft benefits” that are not easily quantifiable. SMBs will almost always look at the bottom line and if a feature does not meet a clear requirement or provide a rather certain return on investment then they will typically opt for the lower priced option.

The final difference that I would like to address is in how prices are determined. Enterprise customers typically negotiate a blanket discount rate that applies to everything that they purchase from their vendor. Getting pricing on new products or price comparing many products is easy. Very easy. Pricing for the enterprise is quite transparent making it very simple to do cost analysis on one solution over another.

In the SMB market prices are generally negotiated on a purchase by purchase basis. Because of this SMB IT departments generally have only a very general idea of the price differences between two different solutions – especially if those products come from two different vendors. Gathering enough data to do a large cost analysis study is both time prohibitive and ineffectual as prices continuously change and vendors will change discounts regularly based on other factors and behaviors. SMB IT managers cannot simply go to a single web site and look up many different discounted prices and do a quick comparison of many different products giving them a strategic disadvantage over their enterprise counterparts.

This leaves us with a significant challenge. Now that we see why small and medium businesses are fundamentally and behaviorally different than large enterprise businesses we have the obvious question of “how are vendors and SMB customers going to overcome their natural barriers?”

To some degree there is no simple answer. Both vendors and small business IT managers need to be aware of how vendors and their customers behave and think so that they can begin moving toward each other in a meaningful way, but this is only the first step.

Vendors need to have dedicated small and medium business representatives who specialize in the needs of this market. These need to be professionals who have truly studied the market and understand how very small and moderately small businesses behave, what products are generally in use, what their architectures normally look like and more. Vendors often think that SMB IT managers spend their day thinking about ERP, CRM, rapid disaster recovery planning and datacenter consolidation problems as do enterprise CIOs but, in fact, most are concerned with desktop management, virtualization, basic security and maybe even purchasing their very first server! Vendors need empathy with the small business market in order to service it well. Even vendors with amazing products that are perfect for this market often fail to inform their potential customers on when these products may make sense for them or may lack the ability to support them in the configurations that make the most sense.

Most importantly vendors need to find a way to join the conversation (as put forth in “The Cluetrain Manifesto”). In the enterprise space the conversation takes place inside the organization as well as in peer groups and conferences. It is everywhere and finding it is simple. Small businesses struggle with joining the conversation themselves – mostly because they cannot always find it, but it is there.

A perfect example of where this conversation is beginning to emerge is in online technology social media platforms like the SpiceWorks Community. This online community has hundreds of thousands of small and medium business IT professionals and managers online and engaged in ongoing discussions on everything from low level technical problems and architecture concerns to product selection and vendor relationship management. A few progressive vendors have joined the community and are interfacing with their customers and potential customers in a mode that, in many ways, mimics the behavior found in the enterprise. Suddenly vendors and customers have an opportunity for personal interaction and open dialogue.

Through this conversation between vendors and customers there is a real opportunity for vendors to learn about the needs and desires of their customers, interact with customer peers, share resources and, most importantly, simply have an open discussion where concerns and needs can be exposed and addressed. Customers have questions, often a lot of them. There is not time during a sales call requesting pricing for the customer and the vendor to get to know one another and become acquainted with each other’s needs and offerings. Through ongoing conversations, not only when a customer is considering an immediate purchase but on a regular basis, the relationship between vendor and customer can be formed allowing them to understand one another, feel comfortable reaching out with questions and suggestions and more.

Vendors have more than simply the chance to answer product questions when they are part of a larger conversation. They can also provide input into conversations that are not necessarily directly related to their own products. They can provide insight into larger architectural and design decisions. In many cases they can take the time to explain how their products work or why they are valuable to their customers. It is not uncommon, especially in the SMB space, for potential customers to have no previous knowledge of products that are available to them or if products would apply to them, work in their environment or integrate with their architecture.

Because the conversation is an opt-in experience vendors can talk with customers or potential customers without the need for a sales or marketing interface. The customers are ready to hear about products. They want know and they want to learn. This is a marketplace where sales lead generation is already done simply by the fact that the customers are present. They have already given the vendor their ear.

Learning how to behave in this open conversation marketplace is difficult for many vendors – especially those that are very well established large businesses. Adapting is critical as those companies that are perceived as caring about their customers will have a significant advantage over those companies who appear to find it a burden to stoop to interacting with small clients.

Large businesses are accustomed to keeping the SMB market at arm’s length often arguing that the “channel” – the reseller and system integration market – was their interface to small business. The channel, however, acts as a chasm keeping small businesses from ever speaking directly to their vendors causing both to rely on a third party, who may not share any common interest with either, to broker any semblance of a conversation. The channel is not incentivized to act in the interest of either party and will likely only present products and services that they themselves support and those with the greatest profit margins rather than exploring niche product options and exotic solutions that may be a better fit. The interest of the customers are then not passed back to the vendors leaving the vendors guessing blindly what products and services would be useful to the SMB marketplace. The lack of experience with SMBs often means that vendors are completely unknowledgeable about their customers or in many cases simply do not even have those customers.

A perfect example of this breakdown in communications is with IBM. I watched an active online conversation involving IBM where a large group of heavily experience SMB IT professionals were discussing IBM and its place in the SMB space – what products it offered, how they would compete with other vendors and IBM’s specific relationship with small businesses. In this conversation I heard repeatedly people speak about IBM’s only SMB focused offerings being its desktops and laptops. I was shocked, as I suppose was IBM itself, since IBM stopped manufacturing these products many years ago having sold that division to Lenovo. Even experienced IT professionals taking an interest in IBM, enough to participate in what evolved into a virtual panel discussion on their role in the market, were kept so far removed from IBM itself that they were unaware of even who IBM was and what they offered in the market. A significant eye opener for everyone. Likely this breakdown in market communications has been caused by IBM’s reliance on the channel to provide them an interface to their customers and that channel finding it better to sell Lenovo products as IBM products to customers who know the name IBM but do not know Lenovo than to take the time to educate their customers.

IBM is certainly not alone here but with their relatively recent divestment of their desktop and laptop business to Lenovo has created a unique and dramatic challenge in their interface to the SMB market. IBM’s key competitors, Hewlett-Packard and Dell, use their desktop, laptop, display, networking and printer products as their key “in” with SMB customers and then, once chosen as a vendor, are able to make the relatively rare server sales to this market as well. IBM has the challenge of selling servers and services to a market that is guaranteed to be buying its desktops and other products from a competing vendor.

Sun (now a part of Oracle) has long faced this same challenge in this market. SMB IT managers understand desktops and laptops well – this is their bread and butter, what they deal with primarily every day. Most SMB concerns are desktop related and the bulk of their purchasing is done there. SMBs do not buy servers in large quantities with rare exception and using a different vendor for infrequent server purchases, which would involve separate vendor relationships and managing different support contracts, is not something that SMB IT managers are going to seek out. Companies like IBM and Sun need to be involved directly with these customers and make them aware of their unique product offerings, such as Power and Sparc platforms in this example, to even have customers understand who they are and what they may offer.

This issue, hardly unique to IBM and Sun, is exacerbated by the use of the channel. SMB IT shops will generally only turn to one system integrator, managed service provider or vendor to supply them with hardware. Since PCs drive SMB IT this means that SMB shops will, by necessity, be turning to managed service providers who are partnered with someone who supplies desktops. That then makes it rather unlikely that those service providers would additionally be partnered with someone like IBM or Sun. This then, in turn, causes that service provider to automatically recommend products only from the vendor(s) with whom they are partnered further isolating customers from potential solutions from alternative vendors. This isolation can be mitigated through direct vendor to customer relationships even if purchasing itself is still handled through a channel provider. It is in both the vendor and the customer’s interests to interface directly and to engage in a conversation.

It is not uncommon to see IT managers choose a vendor based primarily upon that vendor’s willingness to engage in an open conversation. Customers like vendors with whom they have a relationship. They really like knowing that when something goes wrong or when a great new, but not entirely understood, opportunity arises that they can turn to a vendor representative, especially in an open community like SpiceWorks, and ask them for assistance or guidance. No one expects the representative themselves to have all, or even any, of the answers. They expect that person to have the resources necessary to reach out internally at the vendor and engage the right people. Not only is this method friendly and cost effective but it is also very low stress. Customers often don’t know where the problem may reside and do not have contacts internal to the vendor, unlike enterprise customers who often deal with specific issues so often that they know the necessary resources at the vendor, and without a representative to whom they could turn they may be left without the necessary contact information or channels to get the assistance that they need. In some cases this may result in customers feeling that the product is poorly supported or just does not work and in others could result in new opportunities being lost or the customer turning to another vendor whom they know offers a workable solution.

While the online SpiceWorks community is hardly the only venue for vendor to customer interactions it is rapidly becoming a unique place, do to its scale, reach and unique SMB focus, where vendors and customers can make connections, join in open discussions, create relationships and get support. The community is extremely large, over 700,000 IT professionals all from the SMB ranks and is rapidly expanding both with its online presence but also with local users groups and regional SMB IT conferences – all of which present opportunities for vendors to interact with the SMB marketplace in new and exciting ways. SpiceWorks represents, I feel, a key component in the future of vendor relationships in the SMB IT market. SpiceWorks acts as a broker to the conversation providing the venue and framework necessary to make customer/vendor interactions as simple and valuable as possible. As the community continues to grow and as more vendors decide to become a part of the conversation I expect to see the value of this forum expand exponentially. It is in communities like this that those vendors serious about the SMB IT market will succeed in differentiating themselves and engaging current and potential customers.

Like this:

While some small businesses today have managed to ween themselves from the world of paper, the vast majority of small and medium businesses are still tied, to some degree, to their printers and faxes no matter how hard we all try to move away from them. Everyone recognizes the cost of acquiring printers, maintaining them, networking them, stocking ink and toner, etc. and yet we just cannot quite manage to do away with them completely. Given that printers remain a business necessity we should treat them as such and devise a well-planned printing strategy for our business whether it is for an office with two users and a single printer or several offices with dozens of printers or more. Every business will benefit from planning before purchasing their printers.

One of the biggest mistakes that I have seen happen time and time again is with small businesses deciding that they need a printer and runing out to buy one at the local shop without any planning whatsoever including failing to determine if the printer being purchased will even meet the immediate need let alone fit into an ongoing printing strategy. Printers are so common, lack significantly visible new features between generations, are low enough in cost and are so readily available in the consumer market that it is misleading to businesses making them think that buying any printer off of the shelf will meet their printing needs, but this simply is not the case.

Our first concern in printer purchasing is in appropriately sizing our printers. Before buying a printer we need to decide what type of printing load it will need to handle over its lifetime. Many small businesses today, as paper begins to phase out, will find that even a very small printer will provide more than enough capacity for an entire office. If users can share a single printer then printing costs can be saved through centralized printing. It is far cheaper to maintain a single printer and to stay stocked with supplies for one printer than for one printer on everyone’s individual desks.

If reliability is of concern you could place two printers in the office to be shared and have half of the staff print to one printer and the other half to the other but permission everyone to both printers so that, if one should fail, everyone would remain able to print. You could take the opportunity to place the printers in different areas of the office to reduce time walking to the printer to pick up printed pages.

Most small offices have no problem sharing a single printer for most printing needs with a single, separate printer on the desk of whoever is doing personnel management to allow for “private” printing for times when the data coming out of the printer cannot be seen by just anyone in the office. Although this type of printing is one of the areas where the company can go paperless the most easily and so this may not be a factor in your office.

Now that we are considering shared printers we must concern ourselves with making sure that the printer(s) that we are selecting has a duty cycle capable of handling the printing needs of the entire office. In many cases any printer will be up to this task but for offices who print customer invoices throughout the day, for example, may want to step up to a slightly more heavy-duty model designed for the extra wear and tear. Larger duty-cycle printers often use lower cost ink or toner supplies that reduce the per-page printing cost that is highest with smaller, lower-cost printers. For an office with very heavy printing needs the cost savings of big printers can be significant just in the cost savings from the supplies before even considering other factors. Larger printers will generally also hold more paper reducing time spent restocking the printer and will often have other cost saving features such as dual-sided printing and automatic collation.

Many business also need additional functions in addition to pure printing such as faxing, scanning and copying. These functions are natural extensions of the printer and are available in office all-in-one multi-function printer models. Often, though, low end all-in-one models are marketed heavily towards small businesses in the hopes that these businesses will buy on a whim without researching duty cycles and supply costs as these models often include a cheap-to-acquire, expensive-to-maintain printing element bundled with the unit. In general, printer manufactures make their big money on printer supplies and almost nothing on the printers themselves so we must be acutely aware of the specifications of the printer portion of the all-in-one unit before making a purchase. Often a single all-in-one multi-function printer will suffice for even a relatively large office and any additional printing needs could be met with high-volume printers that do not have additional functions included in them saving additional costs through careful planning.

We must also consider how our new printer or multifunction device will connect to our network. Most low cost printers use USB connections to allow them to connect to a single workstation or server for printing. This is fine for most home users and very small offices but larger offices (and many advanced home users) find this unsuitable as it means that all printing must go through someone’s workstation and that the computer must be in close proximity to the printer. The computer must also be on at any time that the printer is being used and maintenance on the computer will impact the printer as well. I know many small offices that only use this model and for them it works fine, but it does cause additional management overhead that is not necessary.

Networked printers have long been the norm in the office environment and they provide many advantages over direct-attached print devices. Networked printers can be located anywhere on the network whether or not there is a computer close-at-hand. Networked printers can be monitored and managed on the network just like any other network device making their management costs lower from an IT perspective. Network printers can print even if no other computer is turned on. Some network printers have wireless networking built in giving them additional flexibility. Non-network enabled printers can be made into virtual network printers through the use of a print server such as HP’s DirectJet or the NetGear PS121. Print servers are often built in to multi-function network appliances such as small business firewalls like the Apple AirPort Extreme. These types of devices will allow you to attach any USB printer to the network if you did not buy this functionality built in to your printing device.

Often overlooked by small businesses is the differences between laser and other printer technologies such as ink jet. Generally, laser printers cost more to purchase but have lower lifetime operational costs both from a hardware perspective as well as from a printing supply perspective. Laser printers are more likely to be able to be fixed when parts wear out and their toner costs are almost always significantly lower than the cost of ink for ink jets and need to be changed out far less frequently making printers less of a manual burden as well.

The output of a laser printer is almost always more pleasing as well and looks more professional. It is difficult to hide the use of an ink jet printer and even if the reader does not directly notice the quality of the printing subconsciously they will often register that the printing process was less than professional. This may not matter for most of your office printing, but considering that laser printing is generally cheaper in the long run there is little reason to not also get the best looking prints possible.

Ink jet, bubble jet and other non-laser technologies generally come into serious consideration only when photo printing is required which is very rare in a business environment. High quality colour printing requires additional printer management and very expensive paper and ink supplies. For most businesses, if this type of printing is needed, it would be needed in addition to, not in place of, traditional monochromatic laser printing. Colour laser is another consideration for presentation graphics but is generally not suitable for photographic printing. Colour laser adds additional cost that is seldom warranted for the type of printing that most businesses need to do.

So, in conclusion, when making a printer buying decision for small business we must carefully consider our printer strategy. We must size our environment, take into consideration our network design, scale our printer(s) appropriately, consider the cost not only of the printer but also of the printer supplies and consider the manner in which the final prints will be used. A simple spreadsheet can be used to do some very useful and telling calculations about print volume, printer cost and the cost of supplies. All of the information necessary to do these calculations should be available from printer vendor web sites. Consider your printer to be an investment and research accordingly and, as always, use your IT department, whether internal or outsourced, as a resource in any IT purchasing decision – it is their job to understand the technical differences in these products and to provide you with the necessary information to discern between different models, vendors and technologies.